balls in play and how they pertain to the statistics BABIP, FIP, and ERA

[SirKodiak]

From Statistically Speaking by Eric J. Seidman
http://mvn.com/mlb-stats/2008/07/05/recapping-the-bip/

[OldFatGuy]

I stopped after the first four paragraphs, where he duplicates the errors of Voros McCracken. When are these people going to learn.

[SirKodiak]

I stopped after the first four paragraphs, where he duplicates the errors of Voros McCracken. When are these people going to learn.

Then you stopped before you got to where he goes beyond Voros.

[OldFatGuy]

OK, read the whole thing. And he never goes beyond Voros, at least not by much. Instead of admitting that pitchers DO have control on results of balls in play, he dances around the fact by suggesting that some pitchers get better results simply because of movement. Dah. Guess what, control also affects it, as does change in velocity, etc. etc.

Once you create a stat or theory on a false premise (pitchers have no control over balls in play), then anything after that is flawed. Period.

[SirKodiak]

OK, read the whole thing. And he never goes beyond Voros, at least not by much. Instead of admitting that pitchers DO have control on results of balls in play, he dances around the fact by suggesting that some pitchers get better results simply because of movement. Dah. Guess what, control also affects it, as does change in velocity, etc. etc.

from the article:

This was just a recap of the three statistics and explanations pertaining to their usage. Based on this, if we see someone like Carlos Zambrano, whose ERA consistently beats his FIP, based on consistently posting lower BABIPs, we could somewhat safely assume that he might not be controlling anything persay but rather taking advantage of all the aspects proven to result in lower BABIPs. His controllable skills may not be as good as his ERA would suggest but movement, velocity, and location may have combined to greatly aid his efforts.

[OldFatGuy]

from the article:

Notice the word MAY in your bolded quote. As though he's still clinging to the theory pitchers have no control, then look at these quotes, and I'll find some more in that article if you want me to. Also, notice the entire quote you used. He calls all of those you just cited as he says about Zambrano, right before the bolded part, "he might not be controlling anything persay"

There are plenty of other variables as well but what should be clear is that the pitcher has no control over them. He may have control over sustaining a certain percentage of balls in play each year but the hits that result are almost entirely out of his hand. In fact, the only aspects of pitching over which he has any type of control are walks, strikeouts, and home runs allowed. Everything else is dependant on the fielding and luck.
.....
The end result explains what a pitcher’s skillset suggests his ERA should be around. Someone with an ERA much lower than their FIP is usually considered to be lucky while the inverse is also true.
.....
Earned runs are also a direct result of hits, which have been proven to be largely accrued through chance via the DIPS theory.
....
Therefore the FIP is more indicative of performance level because it only measures the three aspects of pitching he has control over ...

[belial]

OK, read the whole thing. And he never goes beyond Voros, at least not by much. Instead of admitting that pitchers DO have control on results of balls in play, he dances around the fact by suggesting that some pitchers get better results simply because of movement. Dah. Guess what, control also affects it, as does change in velocity, etc. etc.

Once you create a stat or theory on a false premise (pitchers have no control over balls in play), then anything after that is flawed. Period.

Pretty much.

[belial]

Heh - it's all luck. I guess if a pitcher gave up no line drives, it was because he was lucky... lol - this study is fricken joke - thanks for giving me something to laugh at.

[HoustonGM]

I guess you two are skipping over where he says things like "almost entirely", "usually considered", "largely accrued", and "more indicative". You're also quoting largely from the section where he is explaining what Voros' premises were and what BABIP itself is. Do you both not realize that the rest of the article was explaining ways that a pitcher can control his BABIP? Instead of getting all up in arms and defensive at the first mention of fielding-independent statistics, try opening up your mind and actually reading what it has to say. This article is simply explaining the concept of BABIP. It is emphatically not saying that BABIP is entirely out of the control of pitchers. In fact, it details the ways that a pitcher CAN control his BABIP.

lol - this study is fricken joke - thanks for giving me something to laugh at.

There was a study?

[OldFatGuy]

I guess you two are skipping over where he says things like "almost entirely", "usually considered", "largely accrued", and "more indicative". You're also quoting largely from the section where he is explaining what Voros' premises were and what BABIP itself is. Do you both not realize that the rest of the article was explaining ways that a pitcher can control his BABIP? Instead of getting all up in arms and defensive at the first mention of fielding-independent statistics, try opening up your mind and actually reading what it has to say. This article is simply explaining the concept of BABIP. It is emphatically not saying that BABIP is entirely out of the control of pitchers. In fact, it details the ways that a pitcher CAN control his BABIP.


There was a study?

Fair enough critique, HGM. But I'm wondering if you read the same article. Yes, he hemmed and hawwed his way through explaining the various stats, but if you read his words closely, the entire article is almost like saying "OK, maybe pitchers DO have more control than we thought, but I'm still not sure, and its still not much." For example, his closing paragraph.

This was just a recap of the three statistics and explanations pertaining to their usage. Based on this, if we see someone like Carlos Zambrano, whose ERA consistently beats his FIP, based on consistently posting lower BABIPs, we could somewhat safely assume that he might not be controlling anything persay but rather taking advantage of all the aspects proven to result in lower BABIPs. His controllable skills may not be as good as his ERA would suggest but movement, velocity, and location may have combined to greatly aid his efforts.

Notice "he might not(emphasis added) be controlling anything persay" and then "His controllable skills may not be as good as his ERA would suggest."

It's like he's finding somone (Zambrano) who is the exception to his beliefs, and is somehow trying to fit him into those beliefs without changing them. At least, that's how I read it.

And this is, summarily, what gets me about so-called SABR heads. They make matter of fact statements; they base them strictly on stats; and then they DARE anyone to question the conclusions. In fact, they demand PROOF if someone makes a different claim.

STATS ARE FLAWED. Why that is so hard to grasp, I don't know. There is NO stat ever invented that can take into account all of the variables of a baseball game. There is no way possible to come up with a control group to prove or disprove these theories. So, when they ask for PROOF, they are expecting stats. But stats are flawed. So around and around in this big circle we go.

Which would be fine with me. You (or others) base your trust in stats, I (and others) base ours in the experience of folks around the game, and we could co-exist in peace. But everytime I mention something that to me is as easy to see as the sky is blue (like pitcher's do have control; like there is such a thing as clutch; like some catcher's DO handle pitchers better) some stathead immediately responds YOU'RE WRONG (implying YOU'RE AN IDIOT), look at the stats. They don't show clutch (or catcher ERA, or whatever). This is, for me, what has caused the defensiveness you mentioned.

[HoustonGM]

Notice "he might not(emphasis added) be controlling anything persay" and then "His controllable skills may not be as good as his ERA would suggest."

It's like he's finding somone (Zambrano) who is the exception to his beliefs, and is somehow trying to fit him into those beliefs without changing them. At least, that's how I read it.

I don't see what's wrong with this. Pitchers DON'T have any control of balls that are in play, unless it is hit to them. They just don't. Once the ball is in play, it's up to the fielders. He's saying that while pitchers can't control a ball once it is in play, they CAN control the types of balls that they let into play, and thus , they CAN control their BABIP, which contradicts the original DIPS theory laid out by Voros.

A ball that is already in play cannot be controlled by the pitcher (except if it's hit to him). There is no way around that. It's just a simple fact. This does not mean, as Voros originally hypothesized, that the pitcher has no control over his Batting Average on Balls in Play, though, because more goes into BABIP than simple luck, as you've said here, and as the author of this article said and detailed explicitly.

His last paragraph is saying the Carlos Zambrano isn't controlling balls that are in play. If Zambrano could do that, he'd be a superhuman pitcher capable of fielding each and every position on the field at once. He's not controlling the balls that are already in play. He's taking advantage of the factors that lead to a lower BABIP. The "original" DIPS theory said that pitchers had zero control over BABIP. It said that BABIP was entirely the result of the fielders and luck. As this article says, that theory has since been proven wrong. There ARE many factors that go into BABIP, and some of those factors CAN be controlled by the pitcher.

[belial]

Hahaha. Give me link the article you read that wasn't slanted please. And imagine that, hard hit line drives are more often base hits - wow, that was almost as good as the study that found out 4 balls is a walk.

[OldFatGuy]

I don't see what's wrong with this. Pitchers DON'T have any control of balls that are in play, unless it is hit to them. They just don't. Once the ball is in play, it's up to the fielders. He's saying that while pitchers can't control a ball once it is in play, they CAN control the types of balls that they let into play, and thus , they CAN control their BABIP, which contradicts the original DIPS theory laid out by Voros.

A ball that is already in play cannot be controlled by the pitcher (except if it's hit to him). There is no way around that. It's just a simple fact. This does not mean, as Voros originally hypothesized, that the pitcher has no control over his Batting Average on Balls in Play, though, because more goes into BABIP than simple luck, as you've said here, and as the author of this article said and detailed explicitly.

His last paragraph is saying the Carlos Zambrano isn't controlling balls that are in play. If Zambrano could do that, he'd be a superhuman pitcher capable of fielding each and every position on the field at once. He's not controlling the balls that are already in play. He's taking advantage of the factors that lead to a lower BABIP. The "original" DIPS theory said that pitchers had zero control over BABIP. It said that BABIP was entirely the result of the fielders and luck. As this article says, that theory has since been proven wrong. There ARE many factors that go into BABIP, and some of those factors CAN be controlled by the pitcher.

OK, fair enough. Perhaps the defensiveness I described above is causing me to read the article through skewed lens. I did just read it again (for the fifth time), and it is entitled "Statistically Speaking" after all.

I certainly don't want to close my mind to learning something new, but it does still read to me like instead of changing his mind about FIP when someone proves FIP's weakness (Zambrano), he's instead trying to imply the theory is fine and Zambrano is just the exception, when in my mind the theory is wrong and therefore the stat is wrong, or useless. But, like I said, I might be getting the wrong conclusions from his article because of looking at it through a defensive lens. I'll accept that criticisim, especially since it may well be true.

[ohms_law]

that was almost as good as the study that found out 4 balls is a walk.

Only after 1888.


http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml

[HoustonGM]

Hahaha. Give me link the article you read that wasn't slanted please. And imagine that, hard hit line drives are more often base hits - wow, that was almost as good as the study that found out 4 balls is a walk.

THIS WASN'T A STUDY.

I certainly don't want to close my mind to learning something new, but it does still read to me like instead of changing his mind about FIP when someone proves FIP's weakness (Zambrano), he's instead trying to imply the theory is fine and Zambrano is just the exception, when in my mind the theory is wrong and therefore the stat is wrong, or useless. But, like I said, I might be getting the wrong conclusions from his article because of looking at it through a defensive lens. I'll accept that criticisim, especially since it may well be true.

Yeah, I'm not getting the same thing out of it as you are. I got it as him saying Carlos Zambrano is a player that has taken advantage of some of the things that lower BABIP, and thus, that is why he routinely beats his FIP score, and that's why you have to look beyond FIP when evaluating pitchers. You have to see if there's something about the pitcher that allows him to sustain a lower BABIP